Opinion: How much is too much? Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update could decide.

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is an agreement between the Boulder City Council and the County Commissioners that lays out the allowed development across the whole Boulder Valley, including the city of Boulder, the unincorporated areas of Gunbarrel, and the surrounding rural prairie and foothills. The BVCP is updated every five years to reflect the current vision for future growth and development. The Plan includes basic levels of density, use, etc. But the details of city zoning are set by the council, and the county’s are set by the commissioners.

The Plan divides the Boulder Valley into four parts: Area I, the actual city of Boulder; Area II, adjacent parcels that are designated for possible annexation once services are available so they can be developed at an urban level; Area III Planning Reserve, about 500-plus acres north of town, including 200+ acres bought for parks, that may be “moved” into Area II; and Area III Rural Preservation, all the rest of the land, which is intended to stay rural, at least for the planning future.

In theory, any land use changes must conform to the policies in the Plan. But many policies are vague, unclear or conflict with others, and the sheer number of policies sometimes leaves unclarity as to what is allowed or intended. These issues will come to a head in this update, given the current council majority’s push for more and more and more housing. 

My underlying concern is whether some council members will ignore both the constraints on our ability to serve a lot more people, as well as what many existing citizens really want. Or maybe these council members don’t care — it’s hard to distinguish. Further, the strongest argument for more housing — that adding more housing will significantly reduce prices — has failed the reality test; prices continue to rapidly escalate.

Survey data that I discussed in my March 24 piece shows that demand so far exceeds any realistic supply increases that it’s a fool’s errand to pursue this approach to affordability. And the “we should be welcoming” slogan is just one of those unarguable phrases that really doesn’t mean much. Do those who spout it really want a million people in the Boulder Valley? Or is it just virtue signaling?

We do have real constraints on growth. Our water supply consists of three sources, roughly one-third from each. Boulder’s original source was the Arapahoe Glacier, which drains into North Boulder Creek, and is snowmelt. A second one is runoff from the mountains to its south, which flows into the main stem of Boulder Creek and is stored in Barker Reservoir next to Nederland. The third one is from the Colorado River via a tunnel that drains into Mary’s Lake above Estes Park and runs down to Boulder Reservoir. 

All of these are filled by snowmelt, and so are shrinking as global warming takes hold. Worse, the rights on the Colorado River are subject to the 1922 Colorado River Compact’s obligation to the Lower Basin states (7.5 million acre-feet per year average), to the treaty with Mexico (1.5 million acre-feet per year beginning in 2026), to farmers’ pre-Compact rights (roughly 2 million acre-feet per year), and to native American tribes’ treaties (up to a quarter of the Compact’s flows). So, our water sources may be severely curtailed.

Then we have our very real traffic issues, as exemplified by the debate over what to do with Iris Avenue. There just isn’t enough space to easily accommodate segregated lanes for bikes and left turn lanes for cars, and still allow the increased levels of traffic to get through easily. Congestion is not a linear function of traffic; it’s a hockey-stick curve. Congestion stays relatively flat until the street hits capacity; then the addition of a few more cars causes congestion to rapidly increase. 

We also have financial constraints. We do not have growth-related development impact fees for parks, recreation centers, libraries, transportation improvements and other essential facilities. The only alternative is to raise general taxes. So those of us who did not contribute to the scarcity must pay more or do with reduced levels of service. Our inclusionary zoning requirement and our jobs-housing linkage fees are completely inadequate to even attempt to provide affordable housing adequate to regain our “missing middle.”

I could go on, but hopefully, I’ve communicated the point. The primary focus of this Comprehensive Plan update should be educating the citizens on the reality of growth’s tradeoffs and its costs, and then letting us decide how much more we really want.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more